Repost please: $1/watt solar panals.
in [Basics]
|
From: Rich Grise on 27 Oct 2009 15:49 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote: > > With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost tied > to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or payback > and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the future > cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly. Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and get a viable nuclear power program going. Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships. Thanks, Rich
From: Bob F on 27 Oct 2009 17:34 Don Lancaster wrote: > A dollar a watt solar panels would be totally useless, since they > would simply be "paint it green" transfer payments of existing > hydrocarbon or nuclear energy. How do you figure this? The price of panels obviously include the price of ALL the energy used in building them. If they have a payback period and last longer than that, they obviously will save energy during their lifetime. Especially since the energy to build them is not nearly the whole price.
From: vaughn on 27 Oct 2009 19:15 "Don Lancaster" <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed. > > Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual > breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy. > Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world. Vaughn
From: Jim Wilkins on 27 Oct 2009 20:47 On Oct 27, 3:49 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > ... > Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them > to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships. > > Thanks, > Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah jsw
From: TheM on 27 Oct 2009 19:36
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM(a)gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Don Lancaster" <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed. >> >> Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy. >> > > Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a > perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world. > > Vaughn I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road, possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus. And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology. M |